[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 41 KB, 366x580, 1280773248159.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1007844 No.1007844 [Reply] [Original]

Any philofags out there?

I'm interested in some philosophers but I don't know where to start (as many of you I guess). I don't want to pick a random book, not understand what he's talking about, lose interest in this author. That's why I propose this thread where you can suggest the best ways to begin reading X philosopher.

The point is not to suggest something like The Critique of Pure Reason to someone who'd want to get into Kant's philosophy. Please consider that we're not all familiar with all the concepts and theories of every philosopher.

Also, inb4 HURR READ A BOOK ON THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY DURR; we already know that and this thread is for specific philosophers and thinkers.

>> No.1007849

the correct term is philosofags

>> No.1007851

what topics are you interested in?

seems like you are treating philosophers as "guys who offer grand systems that explain everything."

>> No.1007854

Wittgenstein seems to be interesting from what I've read, but I don't know what I should read (the Tractacus seems 2deep4me). Any suggestion?

>> No.1007852

Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness

>> No.1007856

>>1007852
hurr

>> No.1007862

>>1007854
wittgenstein is a good place to start. you can try the philosophical investigations. it's a monumental work that started the linguistic turn in analytic philosophy basically. of course, don't treat it as the final word on everything.

>> No.1007864

>>1007844
>There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest—whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer. And if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example, you can appreciate the importance of that reply, for it will precede the definitive act. These are facts the heart can feel; yet they call for careful study before they become clear to the intellect.

>If I ask myself how to judge that this question is more urgent than that, I reply that one judges by the actions it entails. I have never seen anyone die for the ontological argument.

(Albert Camus)

>> No.1007866

>seems like you are treating philosophers as "guys who offer grand systems that explain everything."
lolno
Actually it's not what I think at all. Plus, I'm not really into "shits that preted to explain everything"

>> No.1007869

>>1007864
I've read that one. Interesting.

>> No.1007872

well, the investigations is written in a style that doesn't employ a lot of technical terminology. although it has gone one to define some technical arguments. you can learn about those later.

>> No.1007884

>>1007862
Yeah, I've heard there's "two Wittgenstein" (the first one from the Tractacus and the second one where he rejects some of his earlier ideas).
Do you think I should have a knowledge of something specific before going with the Philosophical Investigations?

>> No.1007887

>>1007844
>philo
>fag

Lover of fags?

>>1007864
In all seriousness, though, Camus was ne'er a philosopher.

>> No.1007898

>>1007884
you may want to read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/
for a background on his earlier thoughts, since you said the tractatus itself is a bit perplexing. might as well read the entry on logico positivism as well, since that's the general tenor of the early wittgenstein.

>> No.1007900

Dear moot,

Please give the philofags their own board so they can stop being such faggots on /lit/.

Love,
anon

>> No.1007904

hey I'm happy to see this thread because right now I'm looking to read Kierkegaard and someone told me I should start with Either/Or
is it a good idea?

>> No.1007906
File: 57 KB, 450x450, 1278219997801.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1007906

>>1007900
u mad?

>> No.1007920

>>1007900
/lit/ is filled with troll threads, wishlists, "what should I read next guize", "show your bookshelves" threads, and other garbage. So please shut up and let the philosophy threads live. They're much better than 85% of what's posted here.

>> No.1007927

Coppleston's History of Philosophy

About 10 volumes or something covering every major philosopher from the pre-socratics to (pretty) contemporary.

Start at the beginning and work your way through.

It's stupid to start with any of the moderns. They just rehash problems that are commented on by the ancients (who do it more clearly).

>> No.1007932

>>1007927
>who do it more clearly
lolol

>> No.1007947

>>1007920

Are you kidding? This, and these, threads suck.

Nothing but name-dropping and other sophomoric bullshit.

>> No.1007958

>>1007927
Some people have specific interests in philosophy. They stick to subjects they like without going meticulously through all the history of philosophy, and it's okay like that.

>> No.1007965

>>1007947
you are welcome to provide more content by your refined philosophical knowledge

>> No.1008002

>>1007904
anyone?

also bumping the thread back on page 0

>> No.1008034

>>1007898
Thanks

>> No.1008063

KONRAD LORENZ
KONRAD LORENZ
KONRAD LORENZ
KONRAD LORENZ
KONRAD LORENZ
KONRAD LORENZ
KONRAD LORENZ
KONRAD LORENZ

>> No.1008112

bump

>> No.1008130

>>1007965

erm... He's looking for a good starting point. I gave him a good starting point.

What more do you want? Moderns can be extremely confusing, especially since their use of language, even completely made up words with no other meaning of proper etymology, can be very confusing.

And since nothing is new under the sun, stick to the ancients.

Don't mean to sound like a pretentious asshole, but in all reality (hurr) it's easier to start with a commentary made to succinctly express the ideas of philosophers than to start with the philosophers themselves. Just about every philosopher is unreadable without a cheat-sheet of terms handy until you get used to philosophical language.

That said, Coppleston's History of Philosophy is a kick-ass commentary. Of course I haven't read all of it, I did say it was about 10 volumes, but it expresses the concepts well and is a good start.

>> No.1008150

I've always been more inclined towards "practical" philosophy. I've read enough Hegel, Kant, and Nietzche to know that I'm just not interested in abstract, heady stuff. Foucault has his moments, but in general most post-modern stuff is off the deep end. I've been left with these guys who don't hide their meaning in a bunch of twisted words:

Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca: stoicism, timeless advice on living a "good" life, mastering yourself, fulfilling obligations as a man in society, etc.

Camus, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard: perhaps best enjoyed by those with melancholic dispositions, but offering honest, brutal, and even funny appraisals of life as we know it.

>> No.1008157

>>1008150
Nietzsche kind of seems like a happy middle ground in that comparison.

>> No.1008168

Never read any philosophy but I'm definitely interested, specifically in existentialism. I'm fine with both actual philosophical writings and philosophical literature

Where should I start?

>> No.1008170

>>1008002
If you're still here, then yes, starting with Either/Or is a good idea. Then read The Sickness Unto Death.

>> No.1008176

OP, you need to start at the beginning and work your way to the end; therefore, reading a history of philosophy isn't a bad idea; you will be introduced initially to the Pre-Socratics and a your education will continue linearly.

>> No.1008187

Read J.L. Austin's 'How to do things with words' or 'sense and sensibilia.' He writes in a nice conversational style (he's actually funny), and if you disagree with him you realize why immediately because of the incredible clarity of his writing. I also recommend David Hume's 'An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding' for the same reason.

>> No.1008191

>>1008168
If you mostly read fiction and want to get into existentialism (and absurdism), I'd suggest you start by reading novels (or even plays) with this theme. Something like Nausea by Sartre might interest you.

>> No.1008196

>>1008170
thank you

>> No.1008200

>>1008191
I do read mostly fiction, but I want to expand my horizons a bit. Thanks for the recommendation. I've actually already read No Exit by Sartre, but that was before I actually got interested in philosophy.

>> No.1008206

>>1008168
Start with Kierkegaard (Either/Or) and Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil). Then move on to Heidegger (Being and Time), Sartre (Being and Nothingness, Existentialism is a Humanism), Camus (The Stranger, The Myth of Sisyphus) and Cioran (A Short History of Decay).

>> No.1008219

>>1008206
Well, thank you very much.

>> No.1008225

>>1008206

What kind of sick person are you that you would recommend a poor burgeoning philosopher start with Kierkegaard? Are you nuts?

Captcha: ERUPTION practices

>> No.1008231

The more I'm reading this, the more I'm realizing that our education system has failed.

Where to start? The Beginning.

It's that simple.

>> No.1008237

>>1008225
Either/Or is a fine place to start. If anything, I'd skip over Heidegger on that list. Dude was not easy to read.

>> No.1008998

morning bump

>> No.1009020

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=2373&start=0
good a list as any
the dude who writes this site fancies himself as a bit of an original philosopher as well. his writings are definately interesting

>> No.1009087

>>1009020

That guy sounds like someone you meet in a bar, have a few minutes of okay conversation with, and then by the end of the night you want to punch him in the face.

>> No.1009095

>>1007844

Of course you're "inb4", you made the thread.

HUUURRRRRR

>> No.1009097

>hurr greeks r beginning cause they old

bitch please. for srs i'd start with something in the last 50 years to save some time with old problems.

this problem is kind of like when you teach calculus. do you start with some intuitive geometric stuff, sure. but you are not going to go into the entire history of how modern calculus came into being and prove the whole set theory blah blah.

once a guy has already a certain level of interest in philosophy, there is absolutely no reason to start with the greeks at all.

>> No.1009106

biggest advances in philosophy occurred in the last 80 years or so. i see no need to go backwards all that much.

this is if you are seriously interested in philosophical problems. if you just read philosophy for some sort of "survey of WISDOMs lol" or whatever, go back to hurrgreeks. but just so you know, if someone namedropped a greek dude to me it would have negative currency.

>> No.1009162

>>1009106
Yeah, no need to know everyfuckingthing about the history of philosophy if you're only interested in some specific philosophers. Having a general background and a basic knowledge of it is, I think enough.

>> No.1009165

God exist_prove_me_wrong.